PDA

View Full Version : Please can we have an option to keep landed aircraft?



leadbaloon
04-10-2004, 03:44 AM
Oleg,

I know this subject has come up before, and I know from reading Tully's post in the Mission Builder Forum that to script the aircraft on the ground is a big job, so a fix for the landed aircraft crashing into each other isn't realistically on option, but could we please have an option to leave them there? I'd quite happily put up with the odd crash (it never really bothered me in the first place) to have the immersion back.

Thanks for your time.

leadbaloon
04-10-2004, 03:44 AM
Oleg,

I know this subject has come up before, and I know from reading Tully's post in the Mission Builder Forum that to script the aircraft on the ground is a big job, so a fix for the landed aircraft crashing into each other isn't realistically on option, but could we please have an option to leave them there? I'd quite happily put up with the odd crash (it never really bothered me in the first place) to have the immersion back.

Thanks for your time.

CHDT
04-10-2004, 03:54 AM
Yep, me too.

I never noticed these collisations and I by far prefer to look at the enemy belly-landed aircrafts than to care at these collisions.

To say the truth, I deeply dislike this new feature!

Cheers,

Mr_Brot
04-10-2004, 08:56 AM
I would be content if they would always disappear, bur sometimes they even explode after landing.

FW190fan
04-10-2004, 09:14 AM
I hate to see aircraft dissapear after a mission.

The bottom line is it takes away from immersion.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-10-2004, 09:36 AM
Turn off AI AI collisions on the ground after AI lands. That will eliminate the collisions, and the aircraft can taxi to their proper parking position.

I need aircraft that survive missions to park after mission in case airfield is attacked and the results recorded in eventlog file.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

mike_espo
04-10-2004, 01:53 PM
Thats one of the things I miss from old IL2. After a mission I could see how many planes made it back to base. Was cool.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

POLISH_PILOT
04-12-2004, 05:36 AM
big bump i wanna see a full airfield at missions end

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/jpgs/blasphem.jpg
Your only making it worse

eleanori
04-12-2004, 05:57 AM
I want to see it as an option at least, come to think of it, I never saw anything on the forums in the way of people wanting it changed in the first place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Future-
04-12-2004, 07:09 AM
Another dead horse receiving numerous kicks. Fascinating.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Gato-Loco
04-12-2004, 11:36 AM
Here is another kick to the poor horse. I still would like to see those landed planes. Actually, I thought that collitions after landing were cool... a wounded pilot or damaged plane with little control...

Chivas
04-12-2004, 11:58 AM
The disappearing landing aircraft is a total immersion killer. An option to keep them would be nice.

VVS-Manuc
04-12-2004, 02:19 PM
I want to see parking AI planes after landing, too!

Bomber_Dude
04-12-2004, 06:00 PM
Keeping them around after landing gets my vote too ! I still fly missions in the original IL2 just for that reason. My guess is that the scripts are still in the code and it wouldn't be that hard to make it an option in the .ini file.

http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/sig01.jpg

leadbaloon
04-13-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
Another dead horse receiving numerous kicks. Fascinating.

- Future

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well hopefully if we aim them into its chest it will act like a cardiac massage and resuscitate the beast.

Thud

Thud

Thud

CaptainGelo
04-13-2004, 04:57 AM
yes plz, bump

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aeronautico
04-13-2004, 05:36 AM
I absolutely miss parked planes on the airfield!

Those silly explosions were... silly though.
Hopefully in Pacific Fighters the code is going to be adjusted (how the hell AI could park on carrier's deck otherwise?), and FB's code can be updated too...


A.

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

VVS-Manuc
04-13-2004, 07:38 AM
In "old" IL-2 I liked to see my AI-sqaud mates coming after a mission and parked their planes in a row. I made nice missions, where a Po-2 landed near a russian tank column, bringing new orders for the tank commander.
Another misson was with a russian command car, which has to pick up a general after he landed and parked with his Pe-8 on an airfield. Luftwaffe had to destroy the Pe-8 in a time limit.
That gave a lot of possiblities for mission designing.
The only problems I had with He 111, which collided when taxiing to the parking area.
Please bring us back the parking AI !

LEXX_Luthor
04-13-2004, 08:37 AM
Yes, it seems to be mostly the large aircraft.

Me~323 were pretty big collision objects.

If they just turn off AI collision during AI taxiing, then they can get to parking area safely.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

eleanori
04-13-2004, 11:18 AM
A dead horse, maybe but wouldn't it be nice just once for some offical voice to answer these POPULAR requests with some sort of response, then maybe it may die. Maybe even a "woops we mucked up", here you go, fixed.

Until then people have the right to ask nicely.

I, to have seen this request many times in the forums, but I still take the time to ask again, you never know.

plumps_
04-13-2004, 07:47 PM
Obviously that horse was very popular when it was alive. Many people are mourning for it. At least we were told that FB was going to be better than IL-2.


I've seen various reasons for why landed aircraft are removed:
- Collisions on the ground
- Possibility to improve the frame rate
- In dynamic campaigns enemy AI flights that happen to pass by the base will attack the landed aircraft instead of performing their assigned task.

IMO none of these justifies the complete removal of all landed aircraft. An option in the conf.ini to keep them would be great.

But as making them disappear can be useful sometimes I'd rather have the mission makers decide whether they should stay or not. So a new checkbox in the Objects &gt; Properties tab of the Full Mission Builder would be a very good solution. Let the mission makers decide what is best for their missions. Sometimes they will find that it's better to make a flight disappear so they can spawn a new one. Sometimes they will want to allow the player to keep track of his wingmen. Then they will uncheck the box named 'Disappear after Landing'.

Or even better: Instead of a simple checkbox give us an input field that allows us to determine for how many minutes a flight remains visible. Then we will have an even more refined tool for directing the missions. Just dreaming.


I remember the first mission I played in the QMB of old IL-2 when I had just bought the sim. It was an attack on an airbase while some enemy bombers were landing there. The bombers would land, taxi to the parking positions and stay there, while their gunners were continuing defending their planes. It was great! Playing the same mission in FB with the disappearing aircraft is really sad.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

T_O_A_D
04-14-2004, 02:40 AM
KAWOP!! Oh my foot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Horse has rigamortis already. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I'll kick again and again when brought up.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-14-2004, 04:03 AM
Good ideas plumps_

Enough machine gun bullets should keep any horse standing, just like in the movies.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

mamal
04-14-2004, 04:14 AM
My vote!!!!!

Aeronautico
04-14-2004, 06:41 AM
I second what plumps_ says...

A.

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

GregSM
04-14-2004, 07:36 AM
Hi,


If it's possible to incorporate a switch to turn it on and off, fine. But AI flights disappear after landing to maintain the integrity of campaign play. Otherwise, excessive collisions would skew the loss tallies. So it's not an aesthetic disaster so much as an unfortunate necessity of gameplay, which I hope isn't compromised to tranquillise the masses as they are represented here.


Cheers,


Greg

VVS-Manuc
04-14-2004, 07:58 AM
I saw no "excessive" collisions in IL-2 ...only sometimes large planes collided

GregSM
04-14-2004, 08:31 AM
"I saw no "excessive" collisions in IL-2 ...only sometimes large planes collided"


The problem wasn't restricted to large planes. For instance, the campaign engine would sometimes generate missions culminating in many smaller planes trying to occupy the few small hardstands of smaller bases. Further, entire flights standing indefinitely at their bases might be decimated if attacked.

If plausibly negotiating these obstacles implies fundamental revision to DCG or the game engine's handling of landing routines, and assuming it's too late for this sort of revision, then I hope they leave it alone.


Cheers,


Greg

leadbaloon
04-14-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
But AI flights disappear after landing to maintain the integrity of campaign play. Otherwise, excessive collisions would skew the loss tallies. So it's not an aesthetic disaster so much as an unfortunate necessity of gameplay, which I hope isn't compromised to tranquillise the masses as they are represented here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By that rationale the maps should all be flat to prevent AI colliding with the mountains as they so frequently do.

The title of this thread is a request for an option to keep the landed aircraft, not a reversal of the change. A line in the conf.ini (if possible) would be an ideal solution all round.

GregSM
04-14-2004, 10:11 AM
"By that rationale the maps should all be flat to prevent AI colliding with the mountains as they so frequently do."


What rationale is that? I'm hoping to see collisions prevented where possible.

"The title of this thread is a request for an option to keep the landed aircraft, not a reversal of the change. A line in the conf.ini (if possible) would be an ideal solution all round."


Yes, as I agree above, a config switch would be great. In the meantime, I'm promoting my understanding of why the change was made to begin with because it seems to me that the dialogue on this board tends to neglect the perspective of campaign play.


Cheers,


Greg

leadbaloon
04-14-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:

"AI flights disappear after landing to maintain the integrity of campaign play. Otherwise, excessive collisions would skew the loss tallies. So it's not an aesthetic disaster so much as an unfortunate necessity of gameplay, which I hope isn't compromised to tranquillise the masses as they are represented here."

"By that rationale the maps should all be flat to prevent AI colliding with the mountains as they so frequently do."

What rationale is that? I'm hoping to see collisions prevented where possible.

Greg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rationale contained in your initial statement was that the AI collisions on the ground impeded the integrity of campaign play by skewing loss tallies. The AI collisions with the mountains also affect the integrity of campaign play and skew the loss tallies. Flat maps would prevent the AI colliding with mountains and therefore nullify said skewing of loss tallies.

I appreciate that you don't wish to have the campaign play suffer, and agree that this aspect of the game is often neglected on these boards. However, as a dedicated campaign player, I feel the immersion aspect of the campaigns suffers as a result of the dissapearing aircraft.

HEXxANGEL
04-14-2004, 03:50 PM
I sure would like to see the landed aircraft too. But only as an option. Back in IL2's days many of my squad members (and me too when landing on autopilot) lost their lifes after a hell of a mission.. It wasn't that much of a problem with the static campaigns, but now with the dynamic campaigns I would hate to see them die on their airbase after they have avoided all these mountains and stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________
Kampf, Sieg oder Tod..

GregSM
04-14-2004, 04:18 PM
Hi Leadballoon,


"The rationale contained in your initial statement was that the AI collisions on the ground impeded the integrity of campaign play by skewing loss tallies. The AI collisions with the mountains also affect the integrity of campaign play and skew the loss tallies. Flat maps would prevent the AI colliding with mountains and therefore nullify said skewing of loss tallies."

That's your false analogy not mine! I'm debating only the value of flights disappearing after landing, a variable we know to be controllable.

"as a dedicated campaign player, I feel the immersion aspect of the campaigns suffers as a result of the dissapearing aircraft."

Interesting. I can appreciate that the disappearing flights might depreciate one's psychological investment. Again, though, assuming an either/or proposition, with my recollection of the still greater drain on immersion caused by the various implausible calamities that had befallen flights sitting at their hardstands, I'll support the status quo.

Hopefully, of coarse, it's still possible to resolve this without too gravely injuring anyone's sense of immersion.


Cheers,


Greg

leadbaloon
04-14-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
That's your false analogy not mine! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, so it's a screaming non-sequitur, but the idea was a flippant jibe to demonstrate the lengths to which the game could be changed to reduce the distortion in loss tallies, and there was no offence intended.

As I said in my original post, I never noticed that many AI crashes on the ground, and there are other people who feel that way (while others obviously share your view, hence the request for an option).

HexXangel - Landing on Autopilot? You deserved to die http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GregSM
04-14-2004, 08:33 PM
Hi Leadballoon,


No offensive taken at all. Anyway, let's hope this talk helps brings us nearer to an ideal we can all except.


Cheers,


Greg

VVS-Manuc
04-15-2004, 02:03 AM
*bump* for parking AI-planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Von-Wand
04-15-2004, 04:14 PM
.

[This message was edited by Von-Wand on Thu April 15 2004 at 03:23 PM.]

Von-Wand
04-15-2004, 04:21 PM
Hello All
Here,here to parking AI-planes.
It just looks so bad when you park up next to your wingman and he vanishes.
It detracts from the overall realism of what is an exellant game, especially in offline campaigns.



"Meine ehre heisst treue"

Monty_Thrud
04-16-2004, 09:48 AM
I'd love it if the planes could stay after a mission, it would be much more satisfing to see your buddies parked up afterwards...also the enemy AI whether belly landed(in a field) or on the airfield, so it would give me time to attack would be much appreciated.
The only time it became a problem for me was in FMB with returning planes crashing into static planes...which was no real problem, i just moved the static planes...done in seconds...maybe a no parking zone on the maps(airfield) for static objects might help.

http://www.uploadit.org/bsamania/Huzzy_no_ordnance03.jpg
"#2 Attack that ship".."#1..with what?".."#2 your ordnance DAMMIT!".."#1 my ordnance is in Olegs office, same place yours is".."#2 we'd better learn German then"

leadbaloon
04-18-2004, 02:54 AM
"Kicking a dead cow and hoping it will come alive." Cedric Bixler.

Bovine rather than equine, but you catch my drift.

DuxCorvan
04-19-2004, 08:23 AM
You can't really solve a problem using tacky workarounds.

If the planes crashed at airfields, they should have improved the taxiing AI, nor just making them disappear, resigning to the easiest but most deficient solution.

I find it very disappointing to park beside your leader just in time to see him vanish in air...

Give us the option, and if this make the aircraft to crash, make the aircraft not to crash...

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.